Tags

, ,

I was intending to leave the Dumbartons alone for a while but, due entirely to John Auchmonty’s serendipitously unusual name I have come across news of the convicted rebels’ fate. All those who were tried were apparently pardoned (although we still have no mention of the fate of the critically ill Captain Sutherland who was absent from the trial)

According to the Calendar of Treasury Books for 18 March 1692:

Royal warrant to the Clerk of the Signet for a privy seal for a restitution of goods and chattels to Patrick Cunningham et al. as follows. At the General Gaol Delivery for co. Suffolk, held at St. Edmundsbury 1689, July 16. Patrick Conningham, James Junas, Robert Johnston, labourers, John Levingston, John Auchmonty. William Danes (Deanes) and Alexander Gawne, gent., were convicted of high treason. They have since been pardoned. Being further moved with compassion, their Majesties hereby grant to them their several goods, chattels and effects forfeited by their attainder or conviction.

So after about three years incarcerated, the seven men were pardoned and their goods returned. This seems rather lenient considering the trouble they caused, but I can’t help feeling slightly pleased, despite fact that these men were, no doubt fairly brutal in their jaunt through East Anglia.

You will also note that Cunningham, Junas (or Innes or Inuas) and Johnson are identified as “labourers”. These were the three who ere named without rank in the trial record and this serves to confirm that they were private soldiers, or, at least, not commissioned officers unlike Livingston, Auchmonty Deane and Gawne who are “gent” in the treasury book and “Captain” or “adjutant” in the trial record.

This difference in status is further illustrated by the 14th Mach Entry:

37l. 14s. 0d. to Geo. Ward for the subsistence for 13 weeks, 7 Nov. last to Feb. 6 last, of the following late prisoners in Newgate, viz. John Auchmonly, Andrew Rutherford and John Livinston, at 10s. a week each, and Robert Johnson, Pat. Cuningham and James Innes, at 6s. per week each.

showing the officers and gentlemen Auchmonty and Livingston had a higher subsistence cost than their three more lowly comrades, indicative of better accommodation and food whilst imprisoned in Newgate

What does it say about the democratic (or otherwise) nature of the rebellion that  of the eight men found most deserving of prosecution for the rebellion, three were, it seems, common soldiers, or “labourers” in civilian terms? Harbords speech to the house said that they had “chosen two Captains” suggesting that the pre-existing regimental hierarchy was at least partially supplanted by the will of the Rebels. According to the “Account of the Defeat”, “Six captains, Eight Lieutenants and Seven Ensigns” were amongst the prisoners taken at Sleaford.  Presumably all of these outranked Cunningham, Innes and Johnson, both socially and militarily. Were these three common soldiers among the true ringleaders of the Rebellion, promoted over their peers and betters for the short duration of the uprising, only to revert to their erstwhile station when tried and imprisoned?

About these ads